User talk:Archduk3/Archive 11
RE:Memory Alpha Wiki Most wiki's use their actual sitename as their mainpage, in this case "Memory Alpha Wiki". Having a redirect from that page to the mainpage would mean better SEO. Mark (talk) 14:21, January 4, 2011 (UTC) United Earth Mirror Universe Logo On Talk page Just wanted to let you know that your logo isn't always centered on your talk page and causes problems if you want to view diffs...not a big deal just thought you should know — Morder (talk) 16:26, January 4, 2011 (UTC) :Yeah, wikia sucks. - 03:23, January 5, 2011 (UTC) Appearances of regulars Moved to Talk:Wesley Crusher Block appeals Dear sir, We might not be Wikipedia, but would you kindly explain how then anyone would be able to appeal a block on Memory Alpha without a block appeal template? -- 08:42, January 14, 2011 (UTC) :Their own talk page. Excepting spam bots, blocks placed on users allow them to edit their own talk page in most cases, unless there is some reason that they shouldn't be able to. Also, blocking someone at MA doesn't block them at wikia central, so even if they're block from editing their talk page by accident, a request to be unblock could be placed there and brought to the attention of an admin here. - 09:07, January 14, 2011 (UTC) Thanks for Edit Thanks for putting my photos in a gallery. Neophyte, I couldn't figure out to edit them in and ignored the thumbnail button thinking it meant tiny. Appreciated. --Joseph Steven :That was actually sulfur, I just changed the file extension to the jpg one from the pdf, and fixed the category. Also, images in a gallery don't use the "thumb" markup, since the size of gallery images are controlled by our corporate overloads. :) - 02:33, January 23, 2011 (UTC) Scroll boxes and mobile Safari/iOS/Webkit Archduk3, Cool page. Just an FYI: mobile Safari (and hence iOS devices, such as the iPod touch and iPhone) can't scroll on the scroll boxes. The one of your article creations/overhauls is a good example. I can only see the first several. The collapsable list thing works, though. Just thought I'd let you know, for you seem to be an advanced Web ML/code guy. I'm the only registered user forced to use an iPod chiefly, so it probably doesn't concern you. Still, thought it'd interest you that I'm "locked out" from seeing them – on many pages, not just yours! 12:53, January 23, 2011 (UTC) :Have you tried this? - 13:15, January 23, 2011 (UTC) That's for the iPad, but I'll try it with the iPod. (The iPod uses a mini Safari.) But thanks for the help! BTW, you're a great admin, IMHO. :) 18:27, January 23, 2011 (UTC) :This might work. Beyond that, all I can say is apple products lead to the dark side. - 23:05, January 23, 2011 (UTC) Heh. Yeah, no Flash support, which is the worst. They won't even try. (It's all I have, though – a gift for my prolonged recovery.) But thanks for the link! 21:17, January 24, 2011 (UTC) :Supposedly, there are a few apps that will get flash content to work on the dark side, but I'm not sure if any of them would work in this case, as they seem to be mostly for watching videos. Smokescreen sounds promising, but without trying it I wouldn't know. - 21:33, January 24, 2011 (UTC) Man, thanks! I've not hooked my iPod to a computer/iTunes yet (health issues+dead motherboard, though strangely, the router running off it is still putting out WiFi....) Anyway, I asked this question on Sulfur's page then realized I probably should've asked you: he's so busy fixing errors, and you know a lot about the tech/MediaWiki/MA logistics. Could you take a look, if/when you've the chance? Thanks. Oh, and I'm really excited about the possibility of getting Flash; not having it locks me out of many sites. :-/ 19:01, January 25, 2011 (UTC) Thanks Hey Archduk3, just wanted to say thanks for being a polite and understanding admin. Whenever I have had the pleasure of talking to you on talk pages or what not you have always phrased your words very constructively and never ridicule and for that I thank you. Keep up the great work. :) -- TrekFan Open a channel 17:32, January 25, 2011 (UTC) "Jonathan Archer" no longer in use! Just to let you know, I've finished what I was doing on Jonathan Archer for the time being. I'll work on some more sections tomorrow or the day after. -- TrekFan Open a channel 03:09, January 26, 2011 (UTC) Possession Will do. Thanks for the heads-up. [[User:QuiGonJinn|'QuiGonJinn']]Talk 16:42, January 26, 2011 (UTC) Bringing this to your attention Hey TrekFan and I decided to split the astrophysics article, placing some of its content on the new astrophysicist article (formerly a redirect). What I tried to do was separate "events related to astrophysics" (keeping them on the original page) while taking the list of astrophysicists (which was intermingled with the former) onto the astrophysicist page. I'm now not sure if I did it correctly (it was my first time). I'm vaguely aware of "merging" articles to preserve edit history. Should've that been done here? ie, merging the content from the original onto the new (duplicating it), and then edit? Now it looks like I'' created all content on the new page, when really I merely selected portions from the a-physics article, and did some editing+formatting. Sorry if I caused a mess! 21:53, January 26, 2011 (UTC) :There isn't really any way to "split" a page history, so the rule of thumb is to mention where the info is from in the edit summary when splitting a page, so someone who is interested in the history knows were to look. The main thing you should look at now is the incoming links at the old page, to make sure links that should be pointing to the new one are, well, pointing there. - 22:00, January 26, 2011 (UTC) Oh. Oops: I already did it, so I can't change the edit summary. Should I do a minor "pseudo-edit" just to leave a note in the edit summary? Or do you think the edit summaries I left in the Astrophysics (here) and Astrophysicist (here) articles are sufficient? And about the second thing: do I just click on "what links here", check all the pages, and examine the links, fixing as necessary? I'm just trying to ensure I understand! (You actually did a good job explaining – it's just my opacity.) Thanks. 16:52, January 27, 2011 (UTC) :Since it's already done, don't worry about it, what's there is already enough to figure out what happened if anyone is interested. As for the links, yes, it is just going through the what links here page and correcting as necessary. - 17:17, January 27, 2011 (UTC) Ok, thanks. I checked every link and corrected as necessary. I also added a note on the Talk:Astrophysicist page letting people know the list of them needs to be completed by checking the "what links here" page. I found more astrophysicists during my link updating but can't add the rest now. Is that an ok think to post on a talk page? 17:25, January 27, 2011 (UTC) :You can post almost anything on a talk page, so long as it has do do with improving an article. - 17:29, January 27, 2011 (UTC) Thanks. I asked that because of [[User talk:Cepstrum#leaving lengthy comments on article talk page|'this']], which said I really messed up on this; it's made me cautious/nervous about article talk pages! (check it out) I'll leave you alone now. Job well done, Archduk3! :) 17:54, January 27, 2011 (UTC) PS Though it ''would be nice to get your take on the above; was I way out of line on the Freiberger article? It seemed like a personal attack, but no one said anything about it, so I figured oh well....it'd be nice if some admin could have stepped in to help/advise me on that one. :-/ :You are suppose to explain why a pna was added to an article, just maybe not in so many words. You tend to use a far more formal writing style, which takes up more space than a the standard, less formal one. To be honest, I haven't seen anything that would be "out of line," but DC has been told repeatedly not to keep reiterating points with lengthy paragraphs on talk pages, and based on her recent activity I wouldn't be surprised if her posts had more to do with that than anything you did. That said, "concise" is always better than "rambling". - 18:14, January 27, 2011 (UTC) --KTHNXBY! (Trying to be concise) ;-) Any chance I could get some help if that arises again? I don't want to, as she preemptively accused me of, go "whining" to people. Still, I could've used some support/advice on how to deal with my brevity problem as well as the hurtful (though helpful, as I replied), out-of-the-blue comments. It was a highly unpleasant experience. Also: I hate to think I've been cluttering MA with my "ramblings" on article talk pages. I want to help, not harm. It's difficult for me to judge properly what/how much to write. Have you any idea how I might know whether my posts are rambling without bothering an admin? (as I'm doing now – sorry for taxing your patience!) 17:41, January 28, 2011 (UTC) Can a bot fix this ST.com link problem? Time to bother you again. ;-) I keep finding external links to startrek.com articles that don't work. I think this is a result of their significant – and recent – overhaul: now the site redirects all the old links to the generic "database" page. I try to fix them when I can (using and the WBM), but it's a tedious process. Moreover, I don't think I (and a few others) have been able to do this to more than a tiny portion of the links, which means readers who are unaware of the WBM won't get to see the linked content. It seems a like a task for a bot. Yes? I'm guessing the answer is "no", for I'd have thought someone other than I would have suggested this long ago. Or maybe no one has noticed/cared....Should I just keep correcting them, or can your bot (or another's) crawl through MA and do this automatically? Thanks. (It's a shame ST.com ruined everyone's incoming links – not just MA's!) 12:36, January 29, 2011 (UTC) :Yes and no. There are three types of ST.com links really: :# Those that "work" and just need to be updated :# Those that definitely don't work and need to be pointed at the WBM with link text :# Those that definitely don't work and need to be pointed at the WBM, but are used as references :The first pass really has to be done by hand, and while doing that, the other things can be slowly cleaned up at the same time. It's all more than a bit messy. -- sulfur 14:07, January 29, 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the detailed explanation, Sulfur. I think I now see why a bot can't do this....but *I don't quite follow #1. Does that mean searching manually (either using their search or google to search the domain) for that same article on the "new" ST.com site, and if it's there, changing the link to the new address? * #3 confuses me. How's it different from #2? *Anyway, bottom line: should I stop using the broken link template unless I can't find the article on the site? (Up to now, I've been using it whenever a link to ST.com redirects me to the generic database page.) Oh, and one more question: I've noticed that some links to ST.com on MA point directly to the WBM. When I "fix" them by converting them to the template, the WBM link displays the usual page wherein you must select the date/version of the archived page. This adds an extra step for the reader, for otherwise one could just link to the desired WBM's archived page and not make the him/her figure out which one to select. (I'm thinking those unfamiliar with the WBM may get confused if a link takes them to the date selection page.) Is there a way to bypass that and have the template link to a particular WBM archived page, obviating the need to make readers choose a page/date? 18:52, January 29, 2011 (UTC) ::1 would be links to pages that still exist, but have moved. 2 are inline links, as in a link like , to pages that don't exist anymore, and 3 are links used as reference link to pages that no longer exist. ::As to your question about having a template link to a version of the page directly at the WBM, there's no neat way to do that. Right now, you can just use the link already on the page to use . Having it link directly to a version of the page would required a different link entirely, and the purpose of the template is only to show that a reference did exist at one time, not actually point to that reference, since there may be pages that the WBM doesn't have archived. - 19:14, January 29, 2011 (UTC) :Better to link to the archive as a whole, since some of the pages have different versions. If someone is confused by the ability to select by date and see when the page was archived, that person has more issues than just that. :) :The different between #2 and #3 is a link that is used as a reference (and shows up as a number, such as 2) and a link that is over a string of text. :I've been fixing #1 by clicking on the link, and if it finds it, using that link to replace the one we have, and if possible, using the template. And you're using the brokenlink template correctly. Use it when the link goes to the generic page or says "not found". I'm going to be putting together a new template that can be used for inline references or links, but that's going to be on pass #2. -- sulfur 19:29, January 29, 2011 (UTC) :Short term: I'm working through them all right now. So, give me some time on that. Once the pass is done, then we can start figuring out what we've missed. -- sulfur 19:38, January 29, 2011 (UTC) Great. Thanks, guys. Very helpful! (And I loved your line about people not understanding how to use the WBM. hehe) 20:14, January 29, 2011 (UTC) :All of the ST.com links have now been cleaned up and use either the or templates. -- sulfur 19:40, January 31, 2011 (UTC) Kudos on splitting up the display graphics cat The way all that different stuff just went indiscriminatly into one category has been bugging me for ages, to the point that I've spent quite some time trying to come up with a way of splitting it. But I was always to skittish to actually start a discussion. It's a huge improvement now, thanks! -- Capricorn 22:39, January 29, 2011 (UTC) Wesley Crusher Quote I laughed when I saw the quote you added to Wesley Crusher. I don't know if that Guinan one or the "Shut up, Wesley!" from Picard is better though! :) -- TrekFan Open a channel 06:43, February 2, 2011 (UTC) :Guinan is far more level-headed than Picard, so Guinan > Picard. - 06:46, February 2, 2011 (UTC) Haha, I guess you're right. -- TrekFan Open a channel 06:51, February 2, 2011 (UTC) New Category I have suggested creating a category called "Planetary classifications" on the Memory Alpha:Category suggestions page. Being an admin, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the matter? -- TrekFan Open a channel 23:41, February 2, 2011 (UTC) :I'm going to take a look at this when I'm done with the Starfleet personnel subcats, as I'm not sure right now what classifications we have in canon and how much this would help. It sounds like a good idea in general, but I need to take a further look at what we have first. - 23:44, February 2, 2011 (UTC) OK, sure. Thanks. -- TrekFan Open a channel 23:45, February 2, 2011 (UTC) Image deletion Please undelete the file. It is a different product, which will be made apparent when I finish the page--Darth Duranium 07:01, February 8, 2011 (UTC) :It's the exact same image, excepting the background color, so why would we need two images? - 07:20, February 8, 2011 (UTC) Federation Starfleet Why are we adding "Federation Starfleet" to sidebars? Wasn't it decided a long time ago that Starfleet is Starfleet, and there is no differentiation between "Earth Starfleet" and "Federation Starfleet?" -Angry Future Romulan 19:18, February 10, 2011 (UTC) :Yeah, I am kind of wondering this too (sorry to chime in here), because I had (albeit slowly and not very often) going around and editing the sidebars to say "Starfleet" as a result of this. --Terran Officer 19:33, February 10, 2011 (UTC) Me too. -Angry Future Romulan 19:40, February 10, 2011 (UTC) ::Monkey see, monkey do. ::To be honest, I completely forgot about that, and have just been adding them without thinking further on it since I've been trying to change all "Earth" Starfleet references to "United Earth" Starfleet. ::So, my bad. - 03:23, February 11, 2011 (UTC) :So do we want to just change all of those sorts back, as the community at large considers Starfleet to be one thing, or are we going to do something different on this? In a way, this is why I have come to consider that family and career information should be found within the article's content and the sidebar for the stats about the person... somewhat less confusing. But anyhoo, however you want to do it works for me. --Terran Officer 05:19, February 11, 2011 (UTC) If I understand correctly, yes, we should change it to simply "Starfleet" anytime we see it listed as something else. -Angry Future Romulan 15:23, February 11, 2011 (UTC) Star Trek Online You have sent numerous messages etc to me about Star Trek Online not being cannon. However you are in error on that fact. Star Trek Online is considered official cannon by CBS Corp. the parent company of the Star Trek Franchise. The STO development team must have everything they do in the game cannon checked by CBS prior to implementing it in game. This has been discussed on the game forums and videos by the Executive Producer of the game D. Stahl on the game homepage. If the game is considered cannon by the parent corporation then it is cannon. There is also a discussion there about the changes to Earth Spacedock where the game designers admitted to mistakenly making the game spacedock look similar to the 2009 movie spacedock, because they were considering the changes made to the timeline by Nero's temporal incursion. Which they admitted were in error. They were also required by CBS to change this and because of player outcry against it. This took awhile to implement due to the cannon check process and design time. The point is whether people want it to be or not, Star Trek Online is considered to be an official part of the Star Trek Franchise. Unlike prior Star Trek Games, STO has to have each change made to it go through a rigorous cannon check by CBS. Something games like Bridge Commander, Star Trek Legacy and Star Trek Armada did not have to go through, because they were not ever evolving like Star Trek Online is. If you don't believe me go to ww.startrekonline.com and visit the developmental forums and watch the videos by the developmental team. They will explain the process they are required to go through by CBS to ensure the game follows cannon. Mikeofborg 12:08, February 13, 2011 (UTC) :Just because the game developers are required to keep their story consistent with established Star Trek continuity, does not make it canon. The novels published by Pocket Books are required to be put up to a similar process of approval, but that does not make them canon. -Angry Future Romulan 23:28, February 13, 2011 (UTC) Wrong again Angry soon to be Romulan. The developers have specifically stated in videos, interviews, and forum posts that CBS has plans for a future series/movie involving the 25th Century and the stories put forth inside Star Trek Online. Hence why the developers have to keep up with past, current and future cannon. Just because this is a game does not mean it cannot have certain elements that are cannon to the franchise. I submit World of Warcraft as an example, the entire cannon of that series is based on the RTS games that came before it, and future plans for a movie and the current books have to conform to the game cannon. Just like Star Trek Online has to conform to past and current Star Trek Cannon, but is building on future cannon and cannon created in the 2009 film. With your flawed logic we have to throw out the 2009 film and anything not TOS/TNG series and spin offs as cannon as they do not fit into the established story that came before it. STO is not just another game like the Bridge Commander, Legacy, Armada, and etc. Those previous games had scopes that were limited and many were not required to conform to the standards of storyline that STO is required to conform to. (Really, we all know there was no Elite Force Hazard Team on Voyager) That should tell you something about STO and the plans CBS has for the future of Star Trek. In reality it is smart business, they are allowing a game to use their name, create stories for them to use to further the franchise, and make some royalty money to boot with little to no cost. Every story made by the development team is the intellectual property of CBS Corp. Prior games it was only the game name and ships/characters that were considered intellectual property, with STO it is also the actual stories that are; which should tell you something. I am really starting to hate Memory Alpha due to all the cannon Nazis here that get their panties in bunch anytime they fell a post doesn't fit into their vision of Star Trek cannon. Guess what, most of did not work for Paramount and most of us don't work for CBS so in reality many of us do not know what they consider cannon. I am sure Gene Roddenberry would be applauding the direction Star Trek Online is taking his creation, because it is introducing his masterpiece to a whole new generation of people that might not otherwise see it. Mikeofborg 16:26, February 17, 2011 (UTC) ::It's "canon", not "cannon". Just because the developers of the game made it to fit within canon doesn't mean it is canon. If such a future series ever comes about, then that series would be canon- but not the game. As it is now games are not canon- only the series' and movies.--31dot 16:33, February 17, 2011 (UTC) :::First and foremost, feel free to leave with your panties in a bunch if you're going to keep accusing people of being Nazis. The project neither wants nor needs people like that, so consider that your only warning. Second, if you want to go on a diatribe about MA's policies, you can do so in the appropriate place instead of my talk page, since right now you're only wasting our time. - 16:55, February 17, 2011 (UTC) ::::This is an interesting little read. FYI. -- sulfur 03:29, February 18, 2011 (UTC) Mahklouf That's been a persistent problem with both that article and that talk page- either Mr. Mahklouf or a representative keeps removing the content from both, saying they don't wish to have the exposure. I suspect that was the case this time. I had already permanently protected the article- obviously it would be hard to do that with a talk page, though.--31dot 16:07, February 16, 2011 (UTC) :Yeah, if it keeps coming from the same IP address it would be easy to just block it, but since they don't use the same one, it's not worth it to block an address for long, and I left it so the anon talk page can still be used, JIC. - 16:24, February 16, 2011 (UTC) Scottie's second death Just a note for the Starfleet casualties (23rd_century)... Didn't Apollo kill Montgomery Scott with a lightning bolt and later revived him in the "Who mourns for Adonis?" episode??? Thanx for all your Hard Work... ConcreteDragon -- 01:37, February 17, 2011 (UTC) :He might have, I would need to watch it again though, since it's been awhile since I watched that episode. - 01:45, February 17, 2011 (UTC) My bad... It looks like he was just knocked back 10 meters and was only "mostly dead"... --ConcreteDragon 22:10, February 17, 2011 (UTC) :Good thing too, I didn't want to watch Kirk go through his clothes looking for loose change. - 22:22, February 17, 2011 (UTC) Whoops I did not realize that George Samuel had been restored in s sidebar (honestly, I remember having already removed that months ago). Sorry about that, thanks for catching it and editing it. --Terran Officer 19:33, February 20, 2011 (UTC) CSS changes Please test them and finalize them on your own personal CSS before putting them into the site CSS and being forced to make 2-3 fixes. -- sulfur 21:33, March 7, 2011 (UTC) Block Your block of seemed a bit severe, Archduk3. He/she wasn't necessarily trying to vandalize the site; maybe they just didn't know how to contribute but were still well-intentioned. It wasn't like the sole contribution you let them make was particularly offensive! --Defiant 09:54, March 8, 2011 (UTC) :"It done got broke and we done fixed it." seems less like a test edit and more like a vandal pointlessly inserting text in the middle of the night, but if you want to lower the block, go ahead. - 10:08, March 8, 2011 (UTC) No, it's alright; 3 days doesn't seem like a very long time. If they were committed to editing here, I'm sure they'll return and, if there's damage to be had, it will have already been caused. I'd ask, though, that you don't block users in the future on suspicion of vandalism but on actually doing it. --Defiant 10:59, March 8, 2011 (UTC) After rereading the policy about this, I realized your block was technically in violation of the blocking policy; the blocked party made only 1 edit and, as far as I can see, there was no attempt to give them a warning. I've therefore removed the block. --Defiant 11:27, March 8, 2011 (UTC) Template Idea I wasn't entirely sure where to go, but I had an idea for a template due in part to the new format onto the various sidebars for starships, space stations and soon people. Basically, it would be like using the "Federation" redirect with one exception (thus, I feel for it's important use here), the link will display (and read) "United Federation of Planets" (without the quotes, of course). Why do we need this, you may be asking me, well... as I understand it, templates are used when the same block of text (no matter how small) may be used over and over and over. The only reason I don't use the "Federation" redirect, is because I feel the sidebar text should read "United Federation of Planets" looks more formal that way. The tooltip of the redirect reads "Federation" (otherwise I'd consider it's use), I'm not exactly sure what it could be named, the template, maybe or I thought I'd mention it to someone, because I know when it comes to templates and redirects, it's best to bring it up first. My reasoning is also for the large, repetitive use of this format, both in sidebars and in general articles, although mostly sidebars. I'm sure this sounds... well, lazy, and perhaps it is. I guess I was trying to think of a greater good when coming up with the idea and proposing it. --Terran Officer 07:07, March 10, 2011 (UTC) :I'm not sure anyone else would go for this, as our small templates generally add formatting, like . My suggestion would be to make it, put it on a few pages, and see what people say. - 19:51, March 10, 2011 (UTC) Humanoid Figure It was capitalized in the script. If the consensus is to not use 'Future Guy' and to use the script spelling, the it gets capitalized. -- sulfur 13:00, March 14, 2011 (UTC) navbox template Looking at it, it should likely vertically align things to the top. Otherwise, they look a bit odd, especially when put onto the same line. -- sulfur 14:41, March 15, 2011 (UTC) :Indeed. I'm going to center it as well. - 14:44, March 15, 2011 (UTC) Occupation field in sidebar I noticed that you changed the "occupation" field in the Demora Sulu sidebar to helmsman instead of Starfleet officer. But wouldn't helmsman actually be a posting, or assignment, instead of an occupation? -Angry Future Romulan 20:24, March 15, 2011 (UTC) :Yes, and no. Her posting is her job, and that information is far more helpful for readers than just Starfleet officer. - 20:34, March 15, 2011 (UTC) Actually, the more I think about it, the more I feel it would be appropriate to add a "posting" field to the sidebar, so we could have both bits of information. Is that do-able? -Angry Future Romulan 20:46, March 15, 2011 (UTC) :It might help if you think of Starfleet as a company, and Starfleet officers as executives. Officer is a title, not a job, as officers do something other then just stand around all day being officers. Also, I know for a fact that if you asked members of the military what their job was, you wouldn't get officer or enlisted man as an answer, but rather what they do, which is their posting. Having a posting and occupation call in the sidebar is redundant then. - 21:05, March 15, 2011 (UTC) Re Recent edit Could you look at the recent changes to Odo? What do you think?--31dot 20:44, March 15, 2011 (UTC) :I would put most of that down as a subjective essay, but there are bit in there that are worth keeping, assuming they aren't already in the article. At the very least that new section needs to be moved much further down the page. - 20:54, March 15, 2011 (UTC) RDM's AOL chat archive Archduk3: Thanks for compiling/editing the AOL RDM chats – I love reading them. Often I come across useful info that'd be helpful in articles but can't recall which chat number (xxx.txt) it's in. I also have a hard time finding which number corresponds to which date and thus must resort to a (roughly) simple . Do you know of any way #I could search for keywords in the chats, and #whether we/someone/MA could either put date metadata in the filenames or put date ranges next to the numbered text file links? It seems like a bot could look for any dates in the text (they're usually if not always in the same format) and output a beginning and – if applicable – end date somewhere? It'd make finding him talking about a particular season (or time during one) much easier. This is a separate issue from searching them though, which I assume may already be possible using the MA search engine. ? Anyway, thanks for getting them up there! 12:52, March 16, 2011 (UTC) (if it's not too much trouble, could you respond on my talk page, so I can see when/if you write back? Thanks.) :We actually just archived them exactly as-is from the original Geocities archive of them. We did not make any changes on them beyond adding in the navigation bars. I'd prefer not to touch or change the files in any way at all. The other oddity is that the dates do not really have anything to do with the name of each file. -- sulfur 13:01, March 16, 2011 (UTC) Thanks, ArchDuk3 and Sulfur. When/if I'm able, I'll look into it. I was hoping there would be an easy way. And I definitely didn't mean to imply altering the file names themselves – only creating a meta-data list that would connect the file names with the dates. I suppose if/when I'm healed (long way out), I could write a script that grabs the .txt files, examines the dates, and creates just such a list for my own use (perhaps even put it on my userpage for others), as well as creating a combined .txt file for easy searching (within the file). 15:45, March 16, 2011 (UTC) Navigation template bug? A-Duk3 As always, I'm grateful to you and the other good folks at MA for making the RDM chats so accessible and easy to read. I think I may have come across a bug, though: in chat 97 (or 98 – I can't go back to check w/out starting this message over), the "next chat" link at the bottom leads to 67/68. (Again: sorry for lack of precision). I don't know whether the bug is on my end, but I've tried many things and keep skipping back thirty .txt files each time. (Even the link tells me it's going to go to the wrong place.) Maybe it's a one-time thing. Still, I thought you/Sulfur might like to know in case there's an error in the navigation template, the .txt indexing, MediaWiki, or Wikia. Meanwhile, I'll manually skip to the next one. 09:51, March 21, 2011 (UTC) :It was just a typo in the navbar. It was on Ron 97 and is now fixed. Thanks for pointing that out.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 09:58, March 21, 2011 (UTC) Thanks, Cleanse! But this puzzles me: did Archduk3 (or someone) actually manually put together the nav bar? If so, that's a lot of work....I'd have thought a bot would do that sort (no pun, heh) of thing. ? Irrespective, you admins/MA "gatekeepers" (a suitable name escapes me – devotées, perhaps?) are invaluable! 12:46, March 21, 2011 (UTC) ::Morder was the guy who manually added the nav bars to the chats, all I did was some touch ups after they were moved for the last time. - 12:58, March 21, 2011 (UTC) Mirror image Thanks for flipping this image back. I must have accidently flipped it when I was editing it. The silly thing is, I even looked at it when I had uploaded it and thought something wasn't quite right, though I couldn't put my finger on it! --| TrekFan Open a channel 11:10, March 19, 2011 (UTC) Screwed up text What are you trying to "unbreak" with this: the'' , was? -- sulfur 20:18, March 21, 2011 (UTC) Is it the link being split into two? That's occurring because the italics at the start of "Kelvin" are closing the italics at the start of the sentence. Then the italics after Kelvin are opening the ones to the end of the sentence. The proper "fix" for this is not to introduce double italics garbage around it, but rather to find a new formatting method for the entire section. -- sulfur 20:20, March 21, 2011 (UTC) :Yes, it is. I also know why it's doing that, and I agree that a better solution needs to be found, but until that happens that "garbage" is maintaining the link behavior one would expect, in firefox at least. It seems that IE doesn't have that problem, but a decent number of users and readers are on Modzilla browsers. I was going to use a template to keep track of locations where this problem occurs, so they can be fixed quickly when a better solution is found. - 20:30, March 21, 2011 (UTC) Sadly, I don't know if a template is worth it, since we'll have to remove the template after the fact anyhow. And we have that construct used all over the place due to stupidity with the RTE previously when it was enabled here. -- sulfur 20:37, March 21, 2011 (UTC) And tbh, I'd be tempted to ''not worry about it, but still look for a proper workaround fix for the situation (such as a note similar to the bg notes we already do). After all, we have such ship links in italics all over the place on MA, so why fix 6-7 of them and leave the rest broken? -- sulfur 20:41, March 21, 2011 (UTC) :I guess I have to not worry about it, since you're done a bot run to remove them all. - 13:03, March 22, 2011 (UTC) Step one toward reworking things. There were only about 20 instances where we used it, and a quick glance at the data suggests at least 200 places where it occurs. Grand scheme of things, the fact that the link appears broken is not a huge disaster, since it only occurs on Mozilla based browsers. -- sulfur 13:25, March 22, 2011 (UTC) :Mozilla based browsers make up a substantial amount of the user and reader base, so while it isn't a huge disaster, it is certainly something we shouldn't leave as is. I was wondering if there was something that could be added to the template to clear all formatting, or if a js fix could be implemented to stop the extra from being added. - 15:13, March 22, 2011 (UTC) I've played around with the formatting on a test wiki, and I've not found any way around it (other than to not use italics at all). The biggest issue is the way that the mediawiki software actually handles the italics calls. That's all happening well before we even get to the point of being able to toy with stuff in JS. Now, that creates a double link because that's correct and proper HTML. That's why Mozilla and WebKit based browsers show it as a double link. The IE browser does a "clever" and merges the two separate links into one link, since it sees that they point to the same place. According to the HTML spec, both types of behaviour are actually correct (it's a very loose and poorly written spec). So, our choices really seem to be as follows (since I can't find any way of telling mediawiki not to break the link up): * Add in fake-out italics into all of our templates before and after anywhere that might include italics. * Suck it up until we can figure out a CSS/JS way around it I really dislike option #1, since the template code is already awkward enough, and does also introduce the possibility of accidental bolds and incorrect italics in there. -- sulfur 15:25, March 22, 2011 (UTC) :If there's no way to clear formatting before the template, I guess we should put the list of known problems locations somewhere on a talk page or forum, and then report this to bugzilla. Removing the requirement that alternate text be italicized should solve a good number of these without some complex back end solution. - 15:40, March 22, 2011 (UTC) Links to episode pages All links to episode pages should use the eplk templates. We should not be doing things like 2366. One of the big points for the episode linking templates was the ability to move all episodes easily if need be. Putting in piped links like that breaks the logic behind the design. -- sulfur 15:29, March 22, 2011 (UTC) :Then the template should be changed to add an option to force some different text to appear. - 15:40, March 22, 2011 (UTC)